Performance by page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only behavioral addition is the default aggregation semantics ('rows are summed per URL over the period'), which duplicates the schema's own description of the aggregate parameter; nothing is said about data freshness, quota/billing impact, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences that front-load the returned metrics before stating the default row granularity. Slight redundancy with the schema's aggregate parameter description keeps it from being a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and a moderate seven-parameter surface, the description does identify the four returned measures, which is the key missing piece. However, it omits reporting-period conventions (Bing's data lag), how position/CTR are expressed, and the relationship to the sibling query- and page-oriented tools, so it is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (limit, sortBy, contains, aggregate, dates, siteUrl) are already documented with defaults, ranges and enums. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the concrete metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position), the entity (per URL), the surface (Bing), and the output shape ('top pages'). That is a specific verb+resource statement an agent can act on, though it never names the sibling tools it is distinct from (get_query_stats, get_pages_for_query).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling list contains several near-identical tools (get_query_stats, get_pages_for_query, get_url_traffic_info) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'per URL / top pages' framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.